In April of this year, Queen Elizabeth did something extraordinary. The British Monarch hosted a state dinner for the Irish President, Michael D. Higgins, at her Windsor Castle home and invited a stellar list of luminaries to sit.

In the normal course of events, this wouldn't merit much
analysis; a head of state inviting a neighboring equivalent for
some diplomatic dining. However, amid the cast of preeminent
invitees, which included Anglo-Irish actor Daniel Day Lewis and
Dublin rugby legend Brian O'Driscoll, was a man who not long ago
was considered the greatest enemy of the UK state, Martin
McGuinness.

Unthinkable a few short years ago, McGuinness' presence was also
phenomenal from his perspective. He had spent the greater part of
his adult life waging war against Crown forces and now he was
breaking-bread with their figurehead in her own dining room.

There was a personal edge to the relationship too. Back in 1979,
while McGuinness was allegedly the leader of Irish Republican
Army (IRA), Earl Mountbatten of Burma - the Queen's second-cousin
and an uncle of her husband, Prince Phillip - was killed by an
IRA bomb whilst on a boating holiday in County Sligo. Mountbatten
had also acted as a mentor for her son, Prince Charles, and was
known as the 'honorary Grandfather' by the presumed heir to the
British throne.

This was deeply personal for Queen Elizabeth and equally emotive
for McGuinness. He had been second in command of the IRA in Derry
in 1972 when the British Army Parachute Regiment shot 26
innocent, unarmed protesters in cold blood on what became known
as Bloody Sunday.

That incident inflamed the Ulster 'troubles' and by the time they
ended with the signing of the Belfast Agreement in 1998, 3,530
people had died (1,936 of them civilians) and over 47,000 had
been injured. Among the casualties were members of the British
aristocracy, government ministers and ordinary Derry civilians,
some of whom McGuinness had considered friends.

Truthfully, the Queen surely feels repugnance towards the IRA and
McGuinness similarly abhors the British establishment – he has
spent decades trying to remove it from his province, first
violently and in later years, politically.

However, the diplomatically experienced and artful monarch and
the rebel-turned-statesman both have one massive incentive in
common. Neither wants a return to war, both want to preserve the
fragile Ulster peace and they are willing to 'put up'
with each other in order to guarantee that.

The British-Irish disaccord effectively began in 1171, when King
Henry II landed his forces in Waterford and the following year
took control of Dublin and created the Lordship of Ireland.

It essentially ended in 1998, 827 years later. That is ten
lifetimes for the average child born in the Western world today
and was many more historically - it's a span of time almost
incomprehensible to the singular human mind. It’s also worth
being mindful of Chairman Mao's apparatchik, who mentioned that
'it was too soon to say' what the effects of the French
Revolution would be, as the peace holds for now but is not
completely airtight.

However, the IRA's origins were in the late 19th century when the
Fenian movement and the Irish Republican Brotherhood sprung up as
counterparts to the parliamentary focused Home Rule campaign
which sought Irish independence from the UK state.

The dangerous history

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict which is once again in the news,
due to the appalling slaughter in Gaza, also has its roots in the
end of the 19th century when nationalist movements gained
momentum in the Jewish and Arab worlds, aimed at achieving
sovereignty for their people in a European-dominated Middle East.

Nevertheless, many Jews see it as a continuation of a battle
which began in 70 AD (that's 1,944 years ago) when the Second
Temple was destroyed by Roman Forces under the future Emperor
Tiberius and the Israelites were slowly scattered to the four
corners of the world.

During the long period when the Jewish community was dispersed,
and settled mainly in Eastern and Central Europe but was also to
be found in places as disparate as Iran, Siberia and Africa, the
Palestinians had become mainly Muslim (with a significant
Christian minority) and Mohammed's faith had become by far the
dominant one in the region. By the 1880's, when the first
significant wave of Jewish immigrants to Palestine took place,
the area was under the control of the Ottoman Empire (Turkey) and
only 15,000 Jews resided there, compared to 408,000 adherents of
Islam.

Jewish immigration continued over the next three decades and by
1917, when the Turks had been defeated and the British were the
new overlords, the figure was estimated at around 78,000. It’s
worth noting that these figures refer to the entire Palestine
Mandate which was considerably larger than the territory disputed
today and that the Jews invariably purchased the land they took.

A further wave of immigrants followed over the next few years,
mainly from what became the Soviet Union as civil war engulfed
their adopted lands. Around the same time, the Arab resistance
was fomented by Lawrence of Arabia with the support of Churchill
as being necessary for a British victory over the Ottomans.

Also in 1917, the UK's Foreign Secretary, Arthur James Balfour
wrote to Baron Rothschild, on behalf of the Zionist Federation of
Great Britain and Ireland - this letter became known as the
'Balfour Declaration.' In it, Balfour indicated that the UK
favored the "establishment in Palestine of a national home
for the Jewish people" and sowed the seeds for the modern
Israeli state and continuous tensions between the Jewish and
Palestinian communities in the region.

The following year, Chaim Herzog was born in Belfast (he would be
raised in Dublin, the new capital of the Irish Free State, where
his father was an enthusiastic supporter of the IRA) and he later
became the sixth President of Israel.

Herzog would also go on to head the Intelligence Branch of the
Israeli Defense Forces during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war which put
paid to the original British plan to divide Palestine into three
areas; an Arab State, a Jewish one and a special international
status for the city of Jerusalem. Ironically, this plan is still
suggested by foreign supporters of the Palestinian cause as the
best solution for the region. The domestic Palestinian factions
demand Jerusalem as their capital.

A lesson from the Queen

Why do I draw the analogy between the 'Irish Question'
and the Jewish one? For two reasons, firstly because I am Irish
and secondly because I think the only possible solution to the
Palestinian-Israeli struggle is something along the lines of the
power-sharing settlement which, although imperfect, has brought
peace to Ulster. In simple terms, the leaders of Israel are going
to have to take Queen Elizabeth's lead and bite their tongues and
the Palestinian rulers (most likely Hamas) will have to mimic
Martin McGuinness and acquiesce to tolerance of their foes.

I'm not suggesting they love each other or suddenly bathe in the
warm glow of friendly kinship, I'm merely proposing that they
consent to at least pretend to get along in public. This is the
only possible outcome for the region that doesn't involve more
futile butchery and terror.

Irish politician Chris Andrews of the Sinn Fein party, whose
grandfather Todd was a prominent IRA member in the 1919-21
Anglo-Irish war which created the modern day Irish state, has
taken a pro-Palestinian line for years. During the 2009 Gaza War,
which cost 13 Israeli lives and 1,417 Palestinian, he described
Israel as a 'terror state' while serving in the Dublin government
of Fianna Fail. He also called for the Israeli ambassador (in
Ireland) to be expelled and has subsequently taken part in
humanitarian flotilla to Gaza.

"The Palestinians are facing a state which has overwhelming
force, resources and military power. They use that to effectively
destroy the notion of a Palestinian state. The Israelis believe
they are under siege from the Palestinians - having settled in
lands that were previously recognized as Palestinian (by the
international community). It has turned into an eye for an eye
and tooth for a tooth conflict," he claims.

"Israel uses disproportionate force on an under-resourced
people. The international community ignores it and Israel seems
to be able to do whatever it wants, whenever it wants. The EU
should be stronger on sanctions against Israel (diplomatic) and
what they could also do is ban products from the illegal
settlements. Also, EU business should be looking at itself and
cease buying products from other locations," continues
Andrews.

Is Israel a terrorist state as alleged? Or are they simply trying
to preserve their territorial integrity in opposition to
murderous terrorists? The general Western view is that because
Israel is a democracy - indeed, the only functioning one in the
region - it can't be classed as such, as if its democratic status
justifies all its actions. Also, Israel relies not on its
democratic status but on the provisions of international law when
justifying its self-defense at the UN.

Palestine also held free elections in 2006 but when Hamas won a
comfortable majority the 'freedom lovers' in the USA and
EU refused to deal with the winners. Hamas is classified as a
terrorist organization by both entities and Israel. Of course,
another stumbling block is that Hamas refuses to recognize Israel
and the deputy Chairman of its political bureau, Mousa Mohammed
Abu Marzook, recently stated that "this is a red line that
cannot be crossed." Incidentally, the UK once felt the same
about the IRA - and the feeling was mutual - but today its Queen
is happy to exchange pleasantries with McGuinness so that proves
deeply held convictions can change when expediency dictates.

The current Gaza crisis, which had caused at least 160 deaths by
Monday morning, is part of an ongoing 'troubles' which
began around the summer of 2006 and has thus far caused over
2,200 fatalities - very much disproportionally on the Palestinian
side as only 39 of them are generally attributed as Israeli
losses.

Why now?

"It appears that the recent kidnapping and murder of three
Israeli teenagers adds to a sense that Hamas is preparing another
offensive. It would seem to be a campaign targeted at degrading
Hamas' military capabilities in the short to medium term,"
suggests political commentator, John McGuirk, a prominent
supporter of the Israeli position.

McGuirk argues Israel is justified in its actions: "The first
duty of any state is, after all, the protection of its own
people." However, he counsels that if Hamas were to launch a
third Intifada (rebellion) it would serve to merely embolden the
Israeli hard-right and make peace an even more distant prospect.
He also suggests that America is more part of the problem than
the solution and that Russia might have an important role to play
in bringing peace to the region.

"They (the USA) are so close to Israel that one understands
why a peace backed by them would be seen as suspicious by the
Palestinians. A greater disaster would be turning the region into
yet another proxy for geo-strategic dominance between the USA and
Russia. However, a genuine partnership to bring lasting peace
would do much for humanity and, as such, provides President Putin
with an opportunity to showcase his leadership to make the world
a better place. If the US and Russian administrations could work
together on this, significant progress could be achieved,"
McGuirk adds.

It's clear that the USA cannot be an honest broker in this
debacle as its bias towards Israel is profound and a cause of
massive offence in the Arab world. However, Russia has been
walking a fine line in the region and has managed to maintain
reasonably good relations with both belligerents. While the
Soviet Union was unabashedly pro-Palestinian, the successor
Russian Federation has been as neutral as possible. It has
condemned Israeli excesses in Gaza, and supported Palestinian
state-hood, while equally resolutely backing Israeli's right to
exist and defend itself. There is also the little mentioned fact
that, despite popular perception, the largest expatriate Israeli
community is not in New York or Berlin, but in Moscow and it
numbers 80,000. Furthermore, Israel has expressed interest in
creating a free trade zone with the Eurasian Union - the
brainchild of President Putin.

However, peace seems a long way off currently while devastating
fury is unleashed on Gaza and Hamas continues to fire rockets
into Israeli territory. The spark for the current violence was
the murder of three Israeli teenagers but subsequently the body
of an Arab teenager was discovered and led to violent protests in
East Jerusalem.

Palestinians say the boy was murdered by Israeli extremists as
retaliation for the murders of the three teenagers. Both Israeli
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his Palestinian
counterpart, Mahmoud Abbas, have acknowledged the murder was a
grave crime, though Netanyahu has been cautious to not describe
it as a revenge killing. The danger of this tit-for-tat violence
is that it may be hard for either the Israeli or Palestinian
authorities to contain and that’s why the International community
is very nervous. However, Israel’s security fence means that
there are limited Hamas retaliation options - the settlements are
more exposed.

The roots for the current confrontation were planted earlier this
year when talks between Israeli and Palestinian leaders broke
down – yet again. This resulted in recriminations from both
sides, with Abbas accused of choosing a unity government with
Hamas over peace, while the Israeli government was slated for
returning to their settlement building enterprise almost right
away.

Following the disappearance of the Israeli teenagers it became
clear that soldiers weren’t looking for them so much as
collectively punishing Palestinians for the crime of a small few.
Netanyahu (probably falsely) blamed the kidnapping on Hamas –
most likely in an attempt to derail the unity government – and
warned they would “pay a heavy price.” But it isn't
Hamas; it is Palestinian civilians who are paying a heavy price
now.

As someone who grew up in Ireland while the 'troubles'
raged in the North, this is depressingly familiar, 'tit-for-tat'
sectarian killings, blame being erroneously apportioned to
justify murder on both sides, and a never-ending cycle of futile
killing.

Furthermore, both regions began their modern trajectory to
violence at approximately the same time, and the two also share
the in-bred grievances of centuries of feuding. Once upon a time,
Northern Ireland was seen as intractable and this Middle East
dispute is perceived as being obstinate today.

Ulster is living proof that this doesn't have to continue to
infinity. Of course, the peace is not perfect, it never is, but
for 16 years, through every tumult imaginable, it has held and
Martin McGuinness and the Queen are now capable of respecting
each-others status and views. The Middle East gap is, on the
other hand, less bridgeable while Hamas promises Israel’s
destruction - the IRA never advocated the complete annihilation
of the UK.

It might be naive to think that Abbas and Netanyahu could one day
do the same, but I sincerely believe that power-sharing and a
two-state solution is the only plausible solution to this
seemingly incurable struggle. To achieve this, it might be time
for Israel to follow the reverse steps of their sixth President,
Chaim Herzog, and look to Belfast, his birthplace.

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.